State of Connecticut v. 312635 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The petitioner is Raquann Tyrone Davis.   He was convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.   After the jury rendered its decision the petitioner then pled guilty to being a persistent dangerous felony offender.   The trial court subsequently sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of 14 years to serve, followed by 6 years of special parole.

The facts underlying the petitioner's conviction are as follows.   On July 12, 2008 at approximately 10:00 p.m., the petitioner, along with three accomplices, drove to West Haven and used handguns to rob the victim of a cell phone, cash and marijuana.   The petitioner was 22 years old when he committed the crime.   Earlier, when the petitioner was 16 years old, he committed another first degree robbery.

The petitioner claims that the sentence he received is “inappropriate” or “disproportionate” pursuant to Practice Book Section 43–28 ¹ and should be reduced to seven and one-half years.   In support of his claim, he asserts his innocence and claims that he was convicted based on false evidence.   He also argues that he has a supportive mother and that his youth is a mitigating factor.

The state strongly opposes any reduction in the sentence.   To the contrary, it asks that the sentence be increased to twenty years to serve.   It point out that even though the petitioner is young, he has bad record that includes a prior robbery and multiple violations of probation.   Moreover, the state argues that the petitioner was motivated to commit his crime, at least in part, in order to obtain drugs and has a history of violence.

The Division, having carefully considered the parties' claims and all the relevant information, finds that the sentence imposed by the trial court is well within the parameters of Section 43–28 and should remain intact.   The petitioner has a history of violent crime and used a handgun to rob the victim of personal property.   He refused to accept responsibility for his conduct and has repeatedly violated the terms of probationary sentences he has received.   The sentence he received is appropriate, proportionate and fair.   The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Gary J. White, J.

Joan K. Alexander, J.

Brian T. Fischer, J.

White, Alexander, and Fischer, Js. participated in this decision.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”.  FN1. Section 43–28 indicates that the Division shall “determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative, and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended.”

White, Gary J., Alexander, Joan K., Fischer, Brian T., J.